Newton, M. v. Benjamin, R.
1888 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Sep 15, 2017Background
- Dispute between neighbors over the common boundary between 133 N. Fourth St. (Newton, acquired 2008) and 131 N. Fourth St. (the Benjamins, owned since 1992). Issues: location of boundary, fence, trees/shrubs, and an alleyway barricade.
- Newton sued in magisterial court for trespass (lost); appealed to common pleas and filed an amended complaint adding quiet title and attempt to compel surrender of an allegedly forged deed.
- At trial both parties introduced certified boundary surveys: Newton’s 2014 Walshaw survey and the Benjamins’ 1993 Troxall survey; the court found Walshaw was more precise and adopted it.
- Trial court held: the fence sits on the property line (no encroachment), but ordered removal of certain trees/shrubs and a barricade found to trespass on Newton’s land; alternatively, found Benjamins had a prescriptive easement for the fence.
- Newton repeatedly argued the Benjamins’ deed chain was tainted by a 1905 fraudulent deed and sought to challenge title; the court ruled he lacked standing to attack the Benjamins’ deed because he did not claim possession of their land.
- Newton appealed pro se; this Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in part for both sides and rejected Newton’s challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Newton's Argument | Benjamins' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge opposing deed / quiet title | Newton: may challenge 1905 deed fraud and force surrender of deed; deed is void | Benjamins: Newton lacks standing because he does not claim possession of their land | Court: Newton lacks standing; quiet title actions must be brought by those in possession — claim dismissed |
| Use of Benjamins’ deed as boundary reference | Newton: fraudulent deed cannot be used to establish boundaries or permits | Benjamins: deed is valid for boundary reference; surveys control | Court: Because Newton lacks standing to invalidate deed, deed use challenge fails; court relied on certified Walshaw survey |
| Denial of Newton’s summary judgment motion | Newton: entitled to summary judgment based on deed fraud or undisputed facts | Benjamins: boundary placement is disputed; factual issues require trial | Court: No abuse of discretion denying summary judgment — genuine factual dispute about boundary required trial |
| Prescriptive easement for fence | Newton: fence encroached and was not on line long enough for prescriptive easement | Benjamins: fence has been in place >21 years; even if moved, fence was only turned, not relocated | Court: Found competent evidence (including witness testimony and Walshaw survey) that fence did not encroach or, alternatively, that prescriptive easement existed; ruling affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bride v. Robwood Lodge, 713 A.2d 109 (Pa.Super. 1998) (quiet title must be instituted by the possessor)
- Buck v. Brunner, 74 A.2d 528 (Pa.Super. 1950) (quiet title lies only where plaintiff is in possession)
- Windows v. Erie Ins. Exch., 161 A.3d 953 (Pa.Super. 2017) (standard of review for denial of summary judgment)
- Christian v. Yanoviak, 945 A.2d 220 (Pa.Super. 2008) (standards for appellate review of non-jury civil findings)
- Cooke v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of the U.S., 723 A.2d 723 (Pa.Super. 1999) (trial court’s on-the-record reasons can satisfy Rule 1925 when written opinion absent)